MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402766633 · doi:10.1002/srin.202400125

Continuous Casting Tundish Dead Volume Study by Physical Modeling and Computational Investigation

2024· article· en· W4402766633 on OpenAlexaff
Soumitra Kumar Dinda, D. Li, Fernando Guerra, Chad Cathcart, Mansoor Barati

Bibliographic record

Venuesteel research international · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTundishContinuous castingVolume (thermodynamics)Physical modellingMaterials scienceCastingMetallurgyMechanical engineeringMechanicsEngineeringThermodynamicsGeotechnical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flow efficiency in a two‐strand continuous casting tundish is studied by analyzing the residential time distribution (RTD) curves in a small‐scale tundish water model using a conductive NaCl solution tracer. The velocity fields in the tundish water model are measured by particle image velocimetry, which is used to validate the results of the mathematical model in the article. It is found that the tracer concentration has a significant impact on the predicted dead volume fraction in the RTD analysis. Validated mathematical modeling of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technology is performed to explore the root cause of the defective results in the RTD analysis. It is found that the flow inside the tundish is sensitive to density variations caused by the injected tracer. A denser tracer will stay lower in the tundish by gravity and flow out of the tundish more quickly. A proper tracer concentration in the water model experiments is discussed to visualize the dead volume and improve tundish furniture design efficiently for future work, a new method using CFD modeling is proposed in this article, which can directly demonstrate the dead volume's location.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuesteel research internationalSame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207